If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Xinhua)   Nine in ten Americans are unhappy with Washington, D.C. The other one in ten is a Jacksonville Jaguars fan who has an account at Bank of America and loves to fly United   (news.xinhuanet.com) divider line 110
    More: Fail, Washington DC, Americans, U.S., U.S. House Speaker John Boehner  
•       •       •

790 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2013 at 11:19 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-05 10:11:17 AM
FTFA: a Jacksonville Jaguars fan who has an account at Bank of America and loves to fly United

Damn, Submitter. Don't say things you can't take back. What's next? Are you going to accuse them of liking The Godfather III too?
 
2013-10-05 10:17:43 AM
I don't agree with the shut down, but it's made my commute so much better.
 
2013-10-05 11:21:44 AM
I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.
 
2013-10-05 11:22:14 AM
I heard the also like Justin Bieber?
 
2013-10-05 11:23:41 AM
Reid and Boehner had a deal.  Reid would cut the budget some amount.  Boehner would pass a clean CR.  Reid kept his word.  Boehner did not.

Boehner is a dirty welcher.
 
2013-10-05 11:25:44 AM
Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.
 
2013-10-05 11:26:52 AM
I'm pretty pissed off at congressional Republicans, and I have a Bank of America account.

/what? Their ATMs are convenient
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 11:27:28 AM

Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.


I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.
 
2013-10-05 11:29:49 AM

vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.




If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.
 
2013-10-05 11:31:37 AM

Somacandra: FTFA: a Jacksonville Jaguars fan who has an account at Bank of America and loves to fly United

Damn, Submitter. Don't say things you can't take back. What's next? Are you going to accuse them of liking The Godfather III too?


No, but I saw them all drinking a Miller Lite while being generally in favor of circumcision.

/not subby
 
2013-10-05 11:32:38 AM

Cyclometh: Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.


Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.
 
2013-10-05 11:33:16 AM
What a pointless statistic. Everyone is always unhappy with Washington, D.C. No matter who you are or what you want from your government, there's always someone in Washington, D.C. loudly promoting the contrary point of view.
 
2013-10-05 11:33:50 AM
Boner's career is over after this.
He'll be able to take his place in the pantheon of reviled (R) republicker apparatchiks with Newt, The Bugman, Hastert, et al.

This idea that a majority of the GOP majority has to go along with legislation is Hastert's little conceptual abortion and Boner is using it to good effect as a suicide tool.
 
2013-10-05 11:34:16 AM
Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?
 
2013-10-05 11:35:25 AM

Somacandra: FTFA: a Jacksonville Jaguars fan who has an account at Bank of America and loves to fly United

Damn, Submitter. Don't say things you can't take back. What's next? Are you going to accuse them of liking The Godfather III too?


And Highlander 2.
 
2013-10-05 11:38:07 AM

Cyclometh: Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.


Welcome to the modern legislative process. It may not be right, but it's now accepted and expected. The Tea Party has poisoned the Republican Party. The Tea Party message is "Do what we want or we'll bury you in the next election". And the Tea Party has the power to do exactly that. They are a powerful political machine.
Years and years of rhetoric against the AHA has led to this point. There was never a Plan B for this shutdown because republicans didn't need one. All they needed to do was show they would stand up to the president at every turn and fight this healthcare legislation. The people that voted for these pricks in the past will now continue to vote for them. I hate to tell you, but the precedent has already been set.
 
2013-10-05 11:39:26 AM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


Because, sure, your demands have already led you to get the million in unmarked bills and the helicopter ride to freedom. But you've still got the hostages at gunpoint...why not push for them to throw a free pony into the deal? Surely, SWAT won't call your bluff, right?
 
2013-10-05 11:40:00 AM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


The Senate bill IIRC is actually at lower than previous levels. Boehner and the TeaLaban party will not allow a vote.
 
2013-10-05 11:40:01 AM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


Or they could just pass what they have instead of having a tantrum over the ACA.
 
2013-10-05 11:40:24 AM

Cyclometh: vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.


while i don't necessarily disagree IMO the hit to the economy would doom the republicans even in solid red districts. while fox, free republic and redstate would spin like crazy the fact that it was republicans farkng up everything couldn't be ignored.
 
2013-10-05 11:40:25 AM
The other one in ten loves to slam his wang in a dresser drawer.
 
2013-10-05 11:40:31 AM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


Apparently it is a difficult thing to do, as the bill they won't pass IS a temporary funding bill.

But you knew that, right?
 
2013-10-05 11:41:03 AM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


What do you think the CR is?
 
2013-10-05 11:42:18 AM

there their theyre: Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.


Wait, you mean I shouldn't use an example of one tiny faction of Congress trying to take something that the majority of Americans support, is already settled law, has passed Constitutional muster and doesn't even have the support of the rest of their own party?

You mean that's a bad example? Huh.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 11:44:30 AM

Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.


No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.
 
2013-10-05 11:45:16 AM

DubyaHater: I hate to tell you, but the precedent has already been set.


No, it hasn't. It will only be set if the Senate and the POTUS cave. If they hold the line, the GOP will be left holding the bag on this. And the Tea Party, as powerful as they are, aren't immune to the forces of history. Sweeping political changes have run across this country before and they will again. The Tea Party isn't the endgame of political philosophy, and the longer this drags on the more likely it is they'll find themselves helpless in the next election.

They're making themselves irrelevant by showing everyone who is not insane how petulant, stupid and childish they are. The American public may be fickle, but we definitely don't like whiners.
 
2013-10-05 11:47:15 AM

vpb: Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.


Mighty optimistic, aren't we?
 
2013-10-05 11:48:14 AM

Fart_Machine: Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?

Or they could just pass what they have instead of having a tantrum over the ACA.


Major policy changes should be decided by shutdown politics? How about we pass a RESOLUTION agreeing to CONTINUE the old budget while we take the time to do the rest correctly?

Changing the old budget violates the spirit of the CONTINUING RESOLUTION.
 
2013-10-05 11:48:33 AM

vpb: Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.


I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."
 
2013-10-05 11:49:46 AM

TV's Vinnie: The other one in ten loves to slam his wang in a dresser drawer.


If you let your hand fall asleep first, it's like a stranger slammed your wang in the dresser drawer.
 
2013-10-05 11:51:01 AM

Cyclometh: vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

Let me understand this...

When this bs hits the fan
The President has to take the retards hands off the wheel before we go off the cliff
And he will be formally impeached, so they can tell the rubes back home they did something or another

You all deserve to eat sand

 
2013-10-05 11:51:02 AM
I know that guy, he is the same one who thought the prequels were better than the originals. He also traded in his Spaghetti and Meatsauce MRE for a Vegetarian Omelette one.
 
2013-10-05 11:51:40 AM
I really don't understand why Teahadi anarchists aren't in jail.
 
2013-10-05 11:55:32 AM

TV's Vinnie: The other one in ten loves to slam his wang in a dresser drawer.


Hell, I pay extra for that.
 
2013-10-05 11:57:31 AM
He's also the one dentist who doesn't recommend sugarless gum for patients who chew gum.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 11:57:52 AM

Smoking GNU: I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

Mighty optimistic, aren't we?


No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?
 
2013-10-05 11:59:09 AM

TV's Vinnie: The other one in ten loves to slam his wang in a dresser drawer.


So? I'm not weird about it or anything, I don't tie myself up first.
 
2013-10-05 11:59:24 AM

Phil McKraken: Fart_Machine: Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?

Or they could just pass what they have instead of having a tantrum over the ACA.

Major policy changes should be decided by shutdown politics? How about we pass a RESOLUTION agreeing to CONTINUE the old budget while we take the time to do the rest correctly?

Changing the old budget violates the spirit of the CONTINUING RESOLUTION.


Not sure how calling the current shutdown a tantrum means I support it but OK.
 
2013-10-05 12:00:53 PM
I just saw a rep from Texas on the House floor make the argument that the Gingrich shutdown worked out amazingly well for the GOP and that they should hold strong here and not back down.

Yeah, this isn't ending soon.  Best case scenario is the Democrats' plan to force the CR to the floor ends the shutdown over a week from now, and Boehner grows a pair and puts the debt ceiling to a vote against the Tea Party's wishes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:01:05 PM

Cyclometh: I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."


So would I, but I would wait until after the default or the eve of the default to do anything like that.  I wouldn't worry about impeachment, all that means is that he is tried by the Senate where Dems are the majority.
 
2013-10-05 12:01:43 PM

un4gvn666: I'm pretty pissed off at congressional Republicans, and I have a Bank of America account.

/what? Their ATMs are convenient


FYI, if a credit union is a member of the Credit Union Network, then a member can use the ATMs of any other credit union in the network, with no ATM fees.  And there are smartphone apps that will locate the nearest in-network ATM, no matter where in the country you are.
 
2013-10-05 12:01:52 PM

Fart_Machine: Phil McKraken: Fart_Machine: Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?

Or they could just pass what they have instead of having a tantrum over the ACA.

Major policy changes should be decided by shutdown politics? How about we pass a RESOLUTION agreeing to CONTINUE the old budget while we take the time to do the rest correctly?

Changing the old budget violates the spirit of the CONTINUING RESOLUTION.

Not sure how calling the current shutdown a tantrum means I support it but OK.


Gotcha. I was confused because I assumed you meant it was the Democrats throwing the tantrum.
 
2013-10-05 12:01:55 PM

Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.


To ensure Obama will not be re-elected! Remember: they'll do anything to make sure he's a one-term president.

;)
 
2013-10-05 12:03:29 PM

vpb: Smoking GNU: I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

Mighty optimistic, aren't we?

No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?


How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.
 
2013-10-05 12:05:15 PM

Cyclometh: vpb: Cyclometh: I'm starting to think that this drags on until the next election.

I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.


Wouldn't that be be a coup? Serious question.
 
2013-10-05 12:07:01 PM

foo monkey: I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.


The 14th is pretty clear. You cannot commit an act that calls into question the validity of the debt of the US. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does that. I'm not sure the President needs to punish them, but he could in theory issue an executive order that the Treasury will continue to service the debt. If he does THAT, impeachment is a foregone conclusion, but so is an acquittal by the Senate.

In the end, the fact that there is a debt ceiling at all is probably not Constitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment merely by existing.
 
2013-10-05 12:08:05 PM

vpb: Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.


At this point, the only successful shift they've been managing is their own out of politics and into civilian life.  Nobody buys their little nonsense, and at this point it's become insulting of them to think they can outsmart people who have seen them playing these games to get some imaginary moral ground above the Democrats.

If they really want to go whole hog with the Clinton-Era nonsense, that will only hasten their power loss.  Right now I'm seeing 2014 as being difficult simply because they're pissing off monied interests who are afraid of losing their cash because of this hissy fit by the ignorant that the Republican Policy created.
 
2013-10-05 12:09:03 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Wouldn't that be be a coup? Serious question.


A coup would have to involve taking over or replacing the government. The US is pretty much immune to that. The question of whether the POTUS has the power to unilaterally bypass Congress on the debt ceiling has never been tested, but in the event that it were, the Senate would not vote to convict, nor would the SCOTUS be able to legitimately assert that the President violated the Constitution by upholding it.
 
2013-10-05 12:09:37 PM
So this is how the era of the American super-power ends.

Not with a bang, but with a DERP.
 
2013-10-05 12:10:17 PM

Cyclometh: Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."


I keep reading people saying this, but ACA is only bringing affordable insurance to people. It will do nothing to lower healthcare costs. If anything, it will help enable even MORE people to lose their life savings paying for medical bills not covered by deductibles.

/I would have preferred single-payer instead of this insurance company feeding frenzy, but what do I know, I'm just a RINO according to some people.
 
2013-10-05 12:11:10 PM
While 9 out of 10 Americans may be unhappy with Congress, the wealthy few who provided most of the funding for the hard-right conservatives couldn't be more pleased with what they're doing.
 
2013-10-05 12:12:04 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: At this point, the only successful shift they've been managing is their own out of politics and into civilian life. Nobody buys their little nonsense, and at this point it's become insulting of them to think they can outsmart people who have seen them playing these games to get some imaginary moral ground above the Democrats.

If they really want to go whole hog with the Clinton-Era nonsense, that will only hasten their power loss. Right now I'm seeing 2014 as being difficult simply because they're pissing off monied interests who are afraid of losing their cash because of this hissy fit by the ignorant that the Republican Policy created.


You must have smarter FB friends than I do, because the derpbags I know have only chosen to double down.  Obamacare is apparently going to destroy America,and they're just as sure as evarz.

On that note, did anyone read the article by Forbes (google "Obamacare Doubledown Forbes") on how Obamacare was going to raise costs by hundreds of percents?  Anyone know of a counter-article that points out the flaws of their methods?  I think it was Serious_Black that was Johnny-on-the-Spot with answers before, but I'd be grateful for information from anybody.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:12:50 PM

foo monkey: No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.


There is nothing limiting the 14th Amendment to the civil war.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Refusing to honor that debt would certainly violate the 14th.  What could the president do?  Simply raise it himself,  What could the House do?  They could impeach him but he would be tried by the Senate and his party has the majority.  He would be guaranteed acquittal and by that time the GOP would be about as popular as the mafia.
 
2013-10-05 12:14:08 PM

The_Time_Master: I keep reading people saying this, but ACA is only bringing affordable insurance to people. It will do nothing to lower healthcare costs. If anything, it will help enable even MORE people to lose their life savings paying for medical bills not covered by deductibles.


This doesn't make any sense. How do deductibles cover anything?

The plans available under the exchanges are solid, affordable plans with good coverage, no limits on benefits, and a range of choices that limit your out of pocket maximums. They will lower the cost of healthcare for millions of Americans, especially those who have none, run their own business or get little to no coverage via their employer.
 
2013-10-05 12:14:18 PM
I am happier now than I was a month ago.  If they could please close more of the government and make it permanent then I would say best congress ever!
 
2013-10-05 12:14:52 PM

HeartBurnKid: So this is how the era of the American super-power ends.

Not with a bang, but with a DERP.


Sad but true. Better to end it now and start rebuilding than continue this god damn farce that is modern the republican.
 
2013-10-05 12:15:01 PM

vpb: foo monkey: No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

There is nothing limiting the 14th Amendment to the civil war.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Refusing to honor that debt would certainly violate the 14th.  What could the president do?  Simply raise it himself,  What could the House do?  They could impeach him but he would be tried by the Senate and his party has the majority.  He would be guaranteed acquittal and by that time the GOP would be about as popular as the mafia.


If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.
 
2013-10-05 12:17:02 PM

The_Time_Master: It will do nothing to lower healthcare costs.



I really don't feel like explaining why yearly physicals and early detection of diseases is cheaper than going to an ER when you are terminally ill. So I'll just call you a farking idiot and move on.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:17:08 PM

Cyclometh: foo monkey: I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

The 14th is pretty clear. You cannot commit an act that calls into question the validity of the debt of the US. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does that. I'm not sure the President needs to punish them, but he could in theory issue an executive order that the Treasury will continue to service the debt. If he does THAT, impeachment is a foregone conclusion, but so is an acquittal by the Senate.

In the end, the fact that there is a debt ceiling at all is probably not Constitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment merely by existing.


Well, it would be an attempted coup by the House and the president doing what he has to do to maintain rule of law.

Really, the shutdown is pretty much a coup attempt.  It is a case where on part of one branch of the government is trying to bypass the system of checks and balances in the Constitution to seize more power that it is granted by the Constitution.
 
2013-10-05 12:18:05 PM
Incumbent win%.  These polls mean nothing.
 
2013-10-05 12:18:27 PM

foo monkey: vpb: foo monkey: No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

There is nothing limiting the 14th Amendment to the civil war.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Refusing to honor that debt would certainly violate the 14th.  What could the president do?  Simply raise it himself,  What could the House do?  They could impeach him but he would be tried by the Senate and his party has the majority.  He would be guaranteed acquittal and by that time the GOP would be about as popular as the mafia.

If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.


The Obama Administration says it lacks the authority. Besides, doing so would be an extreme, unprecedented maneuver. Kind of like threatening default for some bullshiat policy change.
 
2013-10-05 12:18:43 PM

foo monkey: If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.


Well, it's not that simple. The power to raise funds, authorize spending, and set budgets is only within the purview of the House of Representatives. It can be argued that the POTUS does not have the power under the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling. However, if the House refuses to do its job and does not pass a debt ceiling raise, then they will have violated the Constitution.

It's called a Constitutional crisis because it's a situation where the rules aren't clear. In this case, who has the power? The House has it but refuses to exercise it. The President doesn't but could order it anyway, in order to prevent a violation of the Constitution- which you could argue comes under the broader duties of his office.

In the end the real issue is that there's a debt ceiling limit at all. Since its very presence creates a non-zero risk of a default on the US debt it is by its very nature un-Constitutional.
 
2013-10-05 12:18:44 PM

Cyclometh: nor would the SCOTUS be able to legitimately assert that the President violated the Constitution by upholding it.


Scalia seen taking yoga classes in anticipation.

/If any man can bend the constitution to fit his myopic viewpoint, it's that asshole.
 
2013-10-05 12:19:30 PM

vpb: Cyclometh: I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."

So would I, but I would wait until after the default or the eve of the default to do anything like that.  I wouldn't worry about impeachment, all that means is that he is tried by the Senate where Dems are the majority.


It also shows that the current Republicans have no remembrance of history. Last time there was a government shutdown in 1995 between President Clinton(D) and Speaker Gingrich(R), Clinton won the 1996 election in a landslide. When Clinton was impeached and acquitted in 1999, the Democrats gained seats in the next Congressional election.
 
2013-10-05 12:19:47 PM

HeartBurnKid: So this is how the era of the American super-power ends.

Not with a bang, but with a DERP.


i.imgur.com

"But we gots what we wanted, which was a government shutdown so we could...uh......AMURICA!!"
 
2013-10-05 12:21:25 PM

Phil McKraken: foo monkey: vpb: foo monkey: No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

There is nothing limiting the 14th Amendment to the civil war.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Refusing to honor that debt would certainly violate the 14th.  What could the president do?  Simply raise it himself,  What could the House do?  They could impeach him but he would be tried by the Senate and his party has the majority.  He would be guaranteed acquittal and by that time the GOP would be about as popular as the mafia.

If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.

The Obama Administration says it lacks the authority. Besides, doing so would be an extreme, unprecedented maneuver. Kind of like threatening default for some bullshiat policy change.


not raising the debt ceiling does not mean defaulting.  You can make cuts to all programs and pay the debt you owe without incurring new debt.  The leeches who steal other peoples money by government taxes dont want a smaller government that we can actually afford.
 
2013-10-05 12:21:32 PM
I read that report from a British source (Guardian) about this:

It also indicated that 72 percent of people disapprove the way Congressional Republicans handling the budget negotiations, while there are 61 percent of people disapprove Obama and his Democrats in Congress.

According to The Guardian, many on the right disapprove of the way Congressional Republicans are handling the negotiations because they don't go far enough into the derp.

These folks really do want riders such as approval of the Keystone Pipeline, abortion ban, means testing Medicare, Christianity declared the US religion, no teaching evolution in schools, etc. included in any budget bill that is brought up to vote.

Fark is somewhat an internet oasis. The levels of derp out there "makes me want to barf" (not mine, it's a line from Sanford and Son).
 
2013-10-05 12:22:04 PM

Cpl.D: Reid and Boehner had a deal.  Reid would cut the budget some amount.  Boehner would pass a clean CR.  Reid kept his word.  Boehner did not.

Boehner is a dirty welcher.


They never made that deal, and the Democrats in the current Congress and WH have never made any meaningful cuts outside of sequestration, which the denounced and blamed on Republicans.
 
2013-10-05 12:23:03 PM

vpb: Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.


Obama is untouchable.  He's a good guy and it shows.  His polling over the last 5 years agrees with that premise.  He hasn't, and he's not going to, do something blatantly wrong b/c, you know, it's not his style.
 
2013-10-05 12:24:33 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Phil McKraken: foo monkey: vpb: foo monkey: No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

How would they violate the 14tg ammendment? What can the President do to punish them? I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

There is nothing limiting the 14th Amendment to the civil war.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Refusing to honor that debt would certainly violate the 14th.  What could the president do?  Simply raise it himself,  What could the House do?  They could impeach him but he would be tried by the Senate and his party has the majority.  He would be guaranteed acquittal and by that time the GOP would be about as popular as the mafia.

If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.

The Obama Administration says it lacks the authority. Besides, doing so would be an extreme, unprecedented maneuver. Kind of like threatening default for some bullshiat policy change.

not raising the debt ceiling does not mean defaulting.  You can make cuts to all programs and pay the debt you owe without incurring new debt.  The leeches who steal other peoples money by government taxes dont want a smaller government that we can actually afford.


That makes it ok. From now on, when the minority party wants something, we should let them wreck our credit rating or gut programs that the Executive doesn't like in order to pay our creditors.

Obama gets to pick and choose, I assume. What things would be the first to go? Every bit of GOP spending in its districts? We can hope.
 
2013-10-05 12:24:39 PM
And Washington STILL doesn't care.  What exactly does that say to everyone?
 
2013-10-05 12:24:50 PM
I'm a Jags fan and hate BoA and the House majority for holding the country hostage because they are whiny goddamn children... but considering a still large number of Jags fans think Tebow will make us a playoff team does demonstrate how delusional the average Jacksonville fan is.
 
2013-10-05 12:24:56 PM

bigsteve3OOO: not raising the debt ceiling does not mean defaulting.  You can make cuts to all programs and pay the debt you owe without incurring new debt.  The leeches who steal other peoples money by government taxes dont want a smaller government that we can actually afford.


Go away. Nobody's biting here today.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:26:16 PM

foo monkey: If he can raise it, why doesn't he do it? Save us from all the bullshiat and uncertainty.


A lot of people want him to do that, but I think it's because it wouldn't save us from all this bullshiat.  There is still the shutdown, that's a separate issue.

I do think that if the Congress allows a default the popular view will be that the House is simply not functional and that the least unconstitutional option would be for the president to deal with things as best he could to save the country from the crisis.
 
2013-10-05 12:26:31 PM

HeartBurnKid: So this is how the era of the American super-power ends.

Not with a bang, but with a DERP.


"We suffered from an illness that was not peculiar to the French. The illness of having been victorious and believing that we were right and very clever. Victory is a very dangerous opportunity." -André Beaufre

While Beaufre was discussing the end of WWI and into the defeat of the French army during WWII, there are times I feel this quote can describe the whole of America's foreign and domestic policies since the end of the Cold War.
 
2013-10-05 12:26:48 PM

Animatronik: Cpl.D: Reid and Boehner had a deal.  Reid would cut the budget some amount.  Boehner would pass a clean CR.  Reid kept his word.  Boehner did not.

Boehner is a dirty welcher.

They never made that deal


Then why did Reid say it? I heard him say it with my own ears. It's seems like you are calling Reid a liar. Citation needed.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:29:36 PM

born_yesterday: Cyclometh: nor would the SCOTUS be able to legitimately assert that the President violated the Constitution by upholding it.

Scalia seen taking yoga classes in anticipation.


I'll bet the supremes either dodge the issue by declaring it to be a non-justiciable political issue or back the president.

What are they going to do?  Destroy the economy?  They would have no choice at that point.
 
2013-10-05 12:31:38 PM

Phil McKraken: Obama gets to pick and choose, I assume. What things would be the first to go?


Too easy, House of Representatives salaries. $74 million in direct salary is being paid to these folks, mostly Republican clowns, add in staff and perks, easily $1 billion right down the drain.
 
2013-10-05 12:32:29 PM

there their theyre: Cyclometh: Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.

Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.


I like my guns, they were my grandfather's. I don't like them enough to vote Republican.

But I agree it's a bad comparison. I also get mad when every time a right winger does something stupid, someone suggests burning down my (blue island in a sea of red) city again.
 
2013-10-05 12:37:38 PM
God, it's such a pipe dream that we get to do something about gerrymandering somewhere in this mess, but it's the job of the bleeding-heart liberal to live in vain hope, no.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-05 12:38:09 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The Obama Administration says it lacks the authority. Besides, doing so would be an extreme, unprecedented maneuver. Kind of like threatening default for some bullshiat policy change.

not raising the debt ceiling does not mean defaulting.  You can make cuts to all programs and pay the debt you owe without incurring new debt.  The leeches who steal other peoples money by government taxes dont want a smaller government that we can actually afford.


If WE (meaning the Senate and president) wanted to let the leaches who don't want to pull their weight run things we could turn the US into a third world country, but the House can't do it.

So yes, not raising the debt limit would mean a default and it would be unconstitutional.
 
2013-10-05 12:41:55 PM

vpb: Smoking GNU: I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

Mighty optimistic, aren't we?

No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?


The 14th amendment concerns paying back debts, not borrowing more money for other stuff like Medicare. The govt doesnt have to go into default just because the Democrats would like to use that threat as a tool to borrow more money.

Obama has no authority to do anything about the.debt under the 14th. Only Congress does. Hes already exceededhis cconstitutional authority by amending the health care law, which is Congress' job. He would risk impeachment if he went even further. Its a shame we get so many arrogant hard core liberals in the Democratic Party these days. Until the 70s, a fair number of them actually cared about the country enough to worry about the debt. Now they just don't give a damn.
 
2013-10-05 12:45:55 PM

Animatronik: The 14th amendment concerns paying back debts,


And what do you think the current fight is about? Paying back our already accrued bills. You must be one of those types that wants to eliminate bankruptcy except for you and the corporations because blah.
 
2013-10-05 12:47:59 PM

there their theyre: Stop bringing gun grabbing up as an example. Use higher income taxes, gay marriage for all, free abortions, but not gun grabbing. There are a lot of democrat voters who like their guns and any ban is unconstitutional anyways.


Fred Phelps is a staunch life-long Democrat, so saying that "some Democrats are in favor of X, so don't say they are against it" is rather pointless. Moreover, I would think even the most gun-happy democrat would have favored some form of gun-control. You know, like the NRA did before the president turned black.
 
2013-10-05 12:48:32 PM

vpb: So yes, not raising the debt limit would mean a default and it would be unconstitutional.


If it gets that far it's assured that Amendment 14 section 4 will be applied, unless Boehner does something prior. Of course, Obama would then be impeached by the House, but nothing else will happen, the Constitution will remain intact and Obama will finish out the rest of his term.

My guess is some folks from the Federal Reserve will hold a meeting with President Obama, Mr. Boehner, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell and explain calmly, "Look, we hire you guys to keep this functioning. Stop thinking you actually run the show."
 
2013-10-05 12:49:05 PM

Cyclometh: Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.


Agreed.

But it is also equally illegal for Obama to arbitrarily decide to delay funding part of the ACA.
 
2013-10-05 12:49:16 PM

The_Time_Master: Cyclometh: Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."

I keep reading people saying this, but ACA is only bringing affordable insurance to people. It will do nothing to lower healthcare costs. If anything, it will help enable even MORE people to lose their life savings paying for medical bills not covered by deductibles.

/I would have preferred single-payer instead of this insurance company feeding frenzy, but what do I know, I'm just a RINO according to some people.


This, this, farking this.

The Tea Party are being morons in this instance about how they are approaching this, but it doesn't change the fact that the ACA is basically extra hookers and blow for the insurance companies off the taxpayer's back.

There is ZERO reason for those insurance assholes to impact their profit line, and they could give a flying rat fark if you or your family die, just as long as you pay the premium.
 
2013-10-05 12:50:38 PM

Animatronik: vpb: Smoking GNU: I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

Mighty optimistic, aren't we?

No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

The 14th amendment concerns paying back debts, not borrowing more money for other stuff like Medicare. The govt doesnt have to go into default just because the Democrats would like to use that threat as a tool to borrow more money.

Obama has no authority to do anything about the.debt under the 14th. Only Congress does. Hes already exceededhis cconstitutional authority by amending the health care law, which is Congress' job. He would risk impeachment if he went even further. Its a shame we get so many arrogant hard core liberals in the Democratic Party these days. Until the 70s, a fair number of them actually cared about the country enough to worry about the debt. Now they just don't give a damn.


That's not what the debt ceiling is. It needs to be raised to pay for expenses already incurred. Not raising it means we default on obligations.
 
2013-10-05 12:54:12 PM

foo monkey: That's not what the debt ceiling is. It needs to be raised to pay for expenses already incurred. Not raising it means we default on obligations.


You're talking to the same people who were absolutely convinced right up until the evening of November 6th, 2012, that Romney was going to win the election. You're talking to the same people who are absolutely convinced that something will happen that will end the shutdown in their favor and kill Obamacare.

You can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into.
 
2013-10-05 12:54:49 PM

Animatronik:  Its a shame we get so many arrogant hard core liberals in the Democratic Party these days. Until the 70s, a fair number of them actually cared about the country enough to worry about the debt. Now they just don't give a damn.


Yeah, everyone knows that HEALTHCARE is so much more important than the debt, that's why those hero Teaparty Republicans are concerned only with THAT and nothing else, including , of course, Debt. Debt takes a back seat to proper healthcare reform. We all know the ACA is a steaming PILE, and NOTHING will be done to save it, so the good ole boys are DEFENDING America from it, no matter WHAT the cost, including the cost of ruining the country... Hey, they're actually pretty farking GOOD at ruining the country! But I digress.
 
2013-10-05 12:55:00 PM
I approve of Washington. Everybody that I voted for to represent me it's doing a pretty good job.

What I disapprove of is the PEOPLE of the states and districts that elected representatives that decided to pull this garbage.

Disapproving of people like Ted Cruz is pointless, it's like blaming a tiger for killing wildebeest. He is what he is, its in his nature. If you think about it, he's actually doing a pretty good job of representing the terrible kind of human beings who could look at a guy like that and think he's senate material.
 
2013-10-05 12:57:59 PM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


That's what this bill is.  Even if they could get the republicans to pass a clean bill, it's STILL only a couple month temporary bill and we're going to have this fight AGAIN in 2 months.
 
2013-10-05 01:00:07 PM

Delay: Animatronik: Cpl.D: Reid and Boehner had a deal.  Reid would cut the budget some amount.  Boehner would pass a clean CR.  Reid kept his word.  Boehner did not.

Boehner is a dirty welcher.

They never made that deal

Then why did Reid say it? I heard him say it with my own ears. It's seems like you are calling Reid a liar. Citation needed.


Indeed.  If Reid was bold faced lying about this, why isn't Boehner calling him out on it?  Why the hesistation?  Why is he acting like someone totally afraid to touch that issue with someone else's 11 foot pole?

I'll tell you.  Boehner is in fear for his job.  That's why he can't find the spine to tell the teahadists off.  That's why, despite there literally being no possible good endgame, he bravely soldiers on.  This country could fall into ruin and he wouldn't care, because he's more worried about his job as speaker.
 
2013-10-05 01:01:32 PM

udhq: I approve of Washington. Everybody that I voted for to represent me it's doing a pretty good job.

What I disapprove of is the PEOPLE of the states and districts that elected representatives that decided to pull this garbage.

Disapproving of people like Ted Cruz is pointless, it's like blaming a tiger for killing wildebeest. He is what he is, its in his nature. If you think about it, he's actually doing a pretty good job of representing the terrible kind of human beings who could look at a guy like that and think he's senate material.


Can we at least call him Rafael Eduardo Cruz?
 
2013-10-05 01:07:49 PM
If it comes to it, can't we just remove all military defenses from the red states and invite other nations to nuke them? Two birds, one stone.
 
2013-10-05 01:20:19 PM
Oh good, it's time for visual aids on the House floor. The previous speaker had an image of an impending train crash. The current one has a picture of calm and collected Boehner and a picture of a yelling Iranian president. Also, some Taliban.
 
2013-10-05 01:27:40 PM

Cpl.D: Delay: Animatronik: Cpl.D: Reid and Boehner had a deal.  Reid would cut the budget some amount.  Boehner would pass a clean CR.  Reid kept his word.  Boehner did not.

Boehner is a dirty welcher.

They never made that deal

Then why did Reid say it? I heard him say it with my own ears. It's seems like you are calling Reid a liar. Citation needed.

Indeed.  If Reid was bold faced lying about this, why isn't Boehner calling him out on it?  Why the hesistation?  Why is he acting like someone totally afraid to touch that issue with someone else's 11 foot pole?

I'll tell you.  Boehner is in fear for his job.  That's why he can't find the spine to tell the teahadists off.  That's why, despite there literally being no possible good endgame, he bravely soldiers on.  This country could fall into ruin and he wouldn't care, because he's more worried about his job as speaker.


You entirely correct about Boehner, he bravely soldiers on for something. It's not our country. Maybe his party, maybe some personal vision? I really don't know.

It's a total suicide mission for him yet he soldiers on. He is as a Spartan at Thermopylae. They did not even like the Athenians, just as Boehner does not like the Tea Party members that he won't fight. Maybe something during evolution was advantageous and explains this illogical behavior in some men.
 
2013-10-05 01:28:23 PM

Animatronik: vpb: Smoking GNU: I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

Mighty optimistic, aren't we?

No, they haven't been able to shift the blame onto Obama for the shutdown, why do think they will be able to do it when they violate the 14th amendment?

The 14th amendment concerns paying back debts, not borrowing more money for other stuff like Medicare. The govt doesnt have to go into default just because the Democrats would like to use that threat as a tool to borrow more money.

Obama has no authority to do anything about the.debt under the 14th. Only Congress does. Hes already exceededhis cconstitutional authority by amending the health care law, which is Congress' job. He would risk impeachment if he went even further. Its a shame we get so many arrogant hard core liberals in the Democratic Party these days. Until the 70s, a fair number of them actually cared about the country enough to worry about the debt. Now they just don't give a damn.


Look, I know Rove told Republicans that they could make their own reality and force everyone else to react to it, but that was just solipsism (sp?)not the actual universe and this ludicrous spin you're attempting is only going to fly with the double digit IQ caucus. Your 'facts' are in error and it makes you look like a fool.
 
2013-10-05 01:38:15 PM

Nemo's Brother: Cyclometh: Postedin another thread, but might as well get things started right:

To everyone who thinks that it's OK to use the power of the purse to defund or delay the ACA: What would your response be if there was a GOP majority in the Senate, a GOP President, and a Democratic majority in the House that used the "Power of the Purse" to force the Senate and the President to enact a ban on semi-automatic handguns nationwide, and if not, they'd shut down the government and refuse to pay the debts of the US?

Our Constitution and system of government was never intended to allow a minority faction of Congress to control the legislative agenda of the country, nor to repeal settled law.

If the House is allowed to get away with this, it will be at the cost of forever weakening the structure of our government by setting the precedent that in order to pass your legislative agenda, you don't need a majority in the Congress or control the Presidency. You don't have to make deals, negotiate or put together the votes for a veto override.

No, in the new America, all you need is a razor-thin majority in the House. Then you can do anything you want because if the rest don't bow to your wishes, you just shut it all down.

That's NOT how it works. And it cannot be allowed to be set as a precedent. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, this kind of disgusting abuse of the legislative process should stick in the craw of every American.

Agreed.

But it is also equally illegal for Obama to arbitrarily decide to delay funding part of the ACA.


Oh crap, this again. First off, he didn't delay funding. Get your points straight. He did delay implementation of certain parts of the act. Secondly, it's not illegal, unethical or even unusual for a large systems implementation to have its timelines adjusted. Attempting to rigidly enforce timelines is far and away the largest cause of project failure. Flexibility is crucial in a dynamic environment since conditions evolve and change from what original projections anticipated. All implementations are moving targets. Changing a milestone in the plan is commonplace.
 
2013-10-05 01:41:07 PM

Poopspasm: If it comes to it, can't we just remove all military defenses from the red states and invite other nations to nuke them? Two birds, one stone.


I don't think that stuff like this helps.

In the current situation there is a bill that became law, passed supreme court challenge and is now in effect. A minority of  Republicans in the House have been told by their donors to stop it at all cost. That's not how the US constitution works. The Republicans know it. Their donors know it. Basically, we are in a civil war. Therefore, let the generals run the show. They decide the engagement and the weapons.
 
2013-10-05 01:44:44 PM

anfrind: un4gvn666: I'm pretty pissed off at congressional Republicans, and I have a Bank of America account.

/what? Their ATMs are convenient

FYI, if a credit union is a member of the Credit Union Network, then a member can use the ATMs of any other credit union in the network, with no ATM fees.  And there are smartphone apps that will locate the nearest in-network ATM, no matter where in the country you are.



Yep, my Credit Union has that. They're also members of another network that has ATMs in every Target and CVS Pharmacy in the country, so I can use those without paying a fee, too. And automatic payroll deposits get posted to my account a day earlier, Wednesday instead of Thursday. And they don't try to rope me into all sorts of extra service charge features like my old bank used to.


</threadjack>
 
2013-10-05 03:01:13 PM

Cyclometh: foo monkey: I get how the debt part relates to post-civil war, but I don't get how it applies here.

The 14th is pretty clear. You cannot commit an act that calls into question the validity of the debt of the US. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does that. I'm not sure the President needs to punish them, but he could in theory issue an executive order that the Treasury will continue to service the debt. If he does THAT, impeachment is a foregone conclusion, but so is an acquittal by the Senate.

In the end, the fact that there is a debt ceiling at all is probably not Constitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment merely by existing.


Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not call into question the validity of the current debt.

"..But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.."
Who determines that? Would arming drug cartels void portions of the debt incurred by the doj?
 
2013-10-05 04:06:43 PM

Phil McKraken: Why don't they pass a temporary spending bill at previous levels for the time being? Why is that a difficult thing to do?


Difficult?  Probably not.  Problem is that in 2010 we started electing people to congress who ran on a platform of hating the government (although they still wanted to work for it) and wanting to f/ck the government up just to point and say "See! I told you so!  Look at how f/cked up the government is."

We're getting what we voted for, and we probably won't be completely rid of the teabaggers until after the first election after the redistricting in 2020.  So we've got nearly another decade of our own congress trying to destroy us/itself.
 
2013-10-05 04:12:45 PM

knowless: Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not call into question the validity of the current debt.


Yes, it would. Servicing the debt already incurred is necessary in order to avoid default and running afoul of the 14th.
 
2013-10-05 05:17:02 PM
You know what, it's been nice knowing you all, but I'm getting to the point where I'm not sure this thing is going to end without Civil War II: The Wrath of the Teabaggers.  I really hope not, but at some point the gulf between people is unbridgeable, and I think we have reached that point.
 
2013-10-05 05:18:45 PM
Addendum: Not to say I'd like to see it end in violence.  Not at all.  I just someone finally realizes that destroying this nation and the global economy isn't worth it to stick it to the blah guy.
 
2013-10-05 07:29:24 PM

Dr. Whoof: Addendum: Not to say I'd like to see it end in violence.  Not at all.  I just someone finally realizes that destroying this nation and the global economy isn't worth it to stick it to the blah guy.


You accidentally a word that changes the entire meaning of your post.
 
2013-10-05 07:42:39 PM

Gyrfalcon: Dr. Whoof: Addendum: Not to say I'd like to see it end in violence.  Not at all.  I just someone finally realizes that destroying this nation and the global economy isn't worth it to stick it to the blah guy.

You accidentally a word that changes the entire meaning of your post.


I did, yes, I missed the word "hope", but then it's in short supply these days.
 
2013-10-05 07:57:56 PM

Cyclometh: vpb: Cyclometh: I think until the 17th.  Once the house violates the 14th amendment by causing a default I think Obama can just ignore them and their debt ceiling.

If he does that we move into full-blown Constitutional crisis. The House would impeach, there still wouldn't be a functioning government, and the economy would probably take a gut punch.

No, we would move into a full blown Constitutioanl crisis when the House allows the government to go into default.

But if the House wants to impeach the president for acting to save the nation from the house republicans unconstitutional action, let them.  The senate will just aquit him and the Supreme Court will either not intervene or support the President because the only other option is allowing the economy to collapse.

Then a precident is established and the House will have pissed away one of it's historical powers.

I really think that the GOP will regret forcing a constitutional crisis and I don't think they will be able to shife the blame to Obama.

I think that's a reasonable scenario, but the POTUS will want to avoid impeachment.

Actually, if I were him I'd be embracing it. "You hillbillies want to impeach the first black President, the guy that brought affordable healthcare to the country, right after you shut down the government and threatened to destroy the world economy? OK, let's dance."


He should be running with the idea. Because if the House tries and fails, he's politically bulletproof. He can push for damn near anything he wants, good or bad, because the threat of impeachment was used up. Any future attempts look like immature whinings, and President Obama can literally ignore Congress. Let them have daily impeachment hearings, he wouldn't have to show up to a single one and answer questions.
 
2013-10-05 09:45:16 PM
Nine in ten Americans are unhappy with Washington, D.C. The other one in ten is a Jacksonville Jaguars fan who has an account at Bank of America and loves to fly United

At least you didn't say he likes to fly US Airways.

Because then you would just be crossing the line subby. That would be slander.
 
Displayed 110 of 110 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report